I'm my experience decoppering agents are a convenience and have nothing to do with improving accuracy. Hence the skepticism of some of our members.
@urbanrifleman
As I see it, your doing David Tubbs a disservice, with your continues rants, argumentative and bulling replies/posts.
Enough already....
When someone takes an element that can be purchased for $28.00 a pound, then resells that element at a rate of $39.95 per .754 ounces......WOW what markup!!!
And how do you know what is in it?
And how do you know what is in it?
Hahahaha, you win, I don’t, but it wouldn’t matter what he puts in it for that price. Cleaning a barrel is a lot easier and cheaper than going this route, imho.
Really?@urbanrifleman
As I see it, your doing David Tubb a disservice, with your continues rants, argumentative and bulling replies/posts.
Enough already....
For those that have tried it, does it increase carbon build up? I have not tried the dust, but I do use both rl16 and rl23. They both have a decoppering agent and lay down a lot more carbon than other rl powders. Honestly Id prefer them without the de coppering agent if thats the cause of the carbon. Copper is easy to remove compared to carbon. Either way I dont really care so long as the accuracy is there.
Im talking hard carbon. The stuff thats still there after you clean the barrel normally. Copper and powder are a non issue, easy to remove. Hard carbon is a problem because if it does get built up you have to get aggressive with the cleaning procedure and that can hurt a barrel. You are seeing a lot more bore scope pics these days. Pay attention to the really clean ones. You will see a smoother finish in those bores. Thats because abrasives are used to maintain that squeaky clean bore too often. I have no issue with jb in a barrel as needed, but if we can reduce the amount needed thats a good thing.